Author
Topic: Did the Pope canonize saints that did not exist? (Read 860 times)

I have concluded after some study that "Saint" Juan Diego who claimed to see the Virgin Mary at Guadelope did not exist as a human. He is merely a political symbol from that time who grew into a religious figure. If indeed this is true this presents a problem for the Catholic Churches claim of infallibility since the Pope canonized somebody who did not exist. If indeed he did this means papal infallibility is not true. If papal infallibility is not true then the Catholic Church, the institution itself claiming to be infallible based on the idea that Christ ordained it to be so, can not be infallible, at least it cannot have valid apostolic succession since at least 1870 since this is the year papal infallibility is declared. In canonizing a saint the Pope is exercising his power as pontiff. Infallibility states this. Many Protestants have wrongly labeled this doctrine the idea that the Pope is without sin, but it is not true. It merely means he is without doctrinal error in exercising his papal office. I am growing increasingly convinced Catholicism cannot be true on this basis. Indeed if the Pope ever is found to have messed up doctrinally this disproves the truth of Roman Catholicism. This really bothers me.

I have concluded after some study that "Saint" Juan Diego who claimed to see the Virgin Mary at Guadelope did not exist as a human. He is merely a political symbol from that time who grew into a religious figure.

Roman Catholics will just claim that the Pope wasn't exercising ex Cathedra on faith and morals authority. It's the ultimate cop out, yes, but it's the one that is used.

There are some Catholics who claim that canonizing a saint is an exercise of infallibility, but I wouldn't call it a majority opinion. (Not that it would really matter if it was a majority opinion, since a majority opinion can still be wrong.)

I have concluded after some study that "Saint" Juan Diego who claimed to see the Virgin Mary at Guadelope did not exist as a human. He is merely a political symbol from that time who grew into a religious figure.

Even if that were true, I don't see how one could put a lot of trust in such a conclusion, based as it is on various historical assumptions.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I have concluded after some study that "Saint" Juan Diego who claimed to see the Virgin Mary at Guadelope did not exist as a human. He is merely a political symbol from that time who grew into a religious figure. If indeed this is true this presents a problem for the Catholic Churches claim of infallibility since the Pope canonized somebody who did not exist. If indeed he did this means papal infallibility is not true. If papal infallibility is not true then the Catholic Church, the institution itself claiming to be infallible based on the idea that Christ ordained it to be so, can not be infallible, at least it cannot have valid apostolic succession since at least 1870 since this is the year papal infallibility is declared. In canonizing a saint the Pope is exercising his power as pontiff. Infallibility states this. Many Protestants have wrongly labeled this doctrine the idea that the Pope is without sin, but it is not true. It merely means he is without doctrinal error in exercising his papal office. I am growing increasingly convinced Catholicism cannot be true on this basis. Indeed if the Pope ever is found to have messed up doctrinally this disproves the truth of Roman Catholicism. This really bothers me.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #891-- "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

1. Canonization normally occurs after a lengthy and extensive process of investigation into the proposed saint, his/her miracles, life, etc., etc., etc. While, once conferred, it is, as I understand it, infallible, many more people than just the Pope are involved in the process, and from what I understand that process is quite rigorous.

2. You make a claim about St. Juan Diego and then provide absolutely nothing to substantiate it. Would you mind doing so, please? You have "concluded after some study..."--what does *that* mean? Why should anyone accept your conclusion?

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I have concluded after some study that "Saint" Juan Diego who claimed to see the Virgin Mary at Guadelope did not exist as a human. He is merely a political symbol from that time who grew into a religious figure. If indeed this is true this presents a problem for the Catholic Churches claim of infallibility since the Pope canonized somebody who did not exist. If indeed he did this means papal infallibility is not true. If papal infallibility is not true then the Catholic Church, the institution itself claiming to be infallible based on the idea that Christ ordained it to be so, can not be infallible, at least it cannot have valid apostolic succession since at least 1870 since this is the year papal infallibility is declared. In canonizing a saint the Pope is exercising his power as pontiff. Infallibility states this. Many Protestants have wrongly labeled this doctrine the idea that the Pope is without sin, but it is not true. It merely means he is without doctrinal error in exercising his papal office. I am growing increasingly convinced Catholicism cannot be true on this basis. Indeed if the Pope ever is found to have messed up doctrinally this disproves the truth of Roman Catholicism. This really bothers me.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #891-- "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

1. Canonization normally occurs after a lengthy and extensive process of investigation into the proposed saint, his/her miracles, life, etc., etc., etc. While, once conferred, it is, as I understand it, infallible, many more people than just the Pope are involved in the process, and from what I understand that process is quite rigorous.

2. You make a claim about St. Juan Diego and then provide absolutely nothing to substantiate it. Would you mind doing so, please? You have "concluded after some study..."--what does *that* mean? Why should anyone accept your conclusion?

Come now, J Michael, you know that on this board there are many who never let a good opinion stand in the way of facts when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church, just as there are many opinionated RC's who never let the same stand in the way of facts when it comes to Orthodoxy. Sad.

I have concluded after some study that "Saint" Juan Diego who claimed to see the Virgin Mary at Guadelope did not exist as a human. He is merely a political symbol from that time who grew into a religious figure. If indeed this is true this presents a problem for the Catholic Churches claim of infallibility since the Pope canonized somebody who did not exist. If indeed he did this means papal infallibility is not true. If papal infallibility is not true then the Catholic Church, the institution itself claiming to be infallible based on the idea that Christ ordained it to be so, can not be infallible, at least it cannot have valid apostolic succession since at least 1870 since this is the year papal infallibility is declared. In canonizing a saint the Pope is exercising his power as pontiff. Infallibility states this. Many Protestants have wrongly labeled this doctrine the idea that the Pope is without sin, but it is not true. It merely means he is without doctrinal error in exercising his papal office. I am growing increasingly convinced Catholicism cannot be true on this basis. Indeed if the Pope ever is found to have messed up doctrinally this disproves the truth of Roman Catholicism. This really bothers me.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #891-- "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

1. Canonization normally occurs after a lengthy and extensive process of investigation into the proposed saint, his/her miracles, life, etc., etc., etc. While, once conferred, it is, as I understand it, infallible, many more people than just the Pope are involved in the process, and from what I understand that process is quite rigorous.

2. You make a claim about St. Juan Diego and then provide absolutely nothing to substantiate it. Would you mind doing so, please? You have "concluded after some study..."--what does *that* mean? Why should anyone accept your conclusion?

Come now, J Michael, you know that on this board there are many who never let a good opinion stand in the way of facts when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church, just as there are many opinionated RC's who never let the same stand in the way of facts when it comes to Orthodoxy. Sad.

"Facts? FACTS?? You want F A C T S Please....don't bother me with FACTS--my mind is made up already!!"

By the way....speaking of..........facts........I read somewhere on the ever infallible internet something about St. Peter the Aleut not being a real person. Any substance to that ?

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I have concluded after some study that "Saint" Juan Diego who claimed to see the Virgin Mary at Guadelope did not exist as a human. He is merely a political symbol from that time who grew into a religious figure. If indeed this is true this presents a problem for the Catholic Churches claim of infallibility since the Pope canonized somebody who did not exist. If indeed he did this means papal infallibility is not true. If papal infallibility is not true then the Catholic Church, the institution itself claiming to be infallible based on the idea that Christ ordained it to be so, can not be infallible, at least it cannot have valid apostolic succession since at least 1870 since this is the year papal infallibility is declared. In canonizing a saint the Pope is exercising his power as pontiff. Infallibility states this. Many Protestants have wrongly labeled this doctrine the idea that the Pope is without sin, but it is not true. It merely means he is without doctrinal error in exercising his papal office. I am growing increasingly convinced Catholicism cannot be true on this basis. Indeed if the Pope ever is found to have messed up doctrinally this disproves the truth of Roman Catholicism. This really bothers me.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #891-- "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

1. Canonization normally occurs after a lengthy and extensive process of investigation into the proposed saint, his/her miracles, life, etc., etc., etc. While, once conferred, it is, as I understand it, infallible, many more people than just the Pope are involved in the process, and from what I understand that process is quite rigorous.

2. You make a claim about St. Juan Diego and then provide absolutely nothing to substantiate it. Would you mind doing so, please? You have "concluded after some study..."--what does *that* mean? Why should anyone accept your conclusion?

Come now, J Michael, you know that on this board there are many who never let a good opinion stand in the way of facts when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church, just as there are many opinionated RC's who never let the same stand in the way of facts when it comes to Orthodoxy. Sad.

"Facts? FACTS?? You want F A C T S Please....don't bother me with FACTS--my mind is made up already!!"

By the way....speaking of..........facts........I read somewhere on the ever infallible internet something about St. Peter the Aleut not being a real person. Any substance to that ?

As there are doubts to the authenticity of St. Theodore Stratelates (of Heraclea), who was a saint common to both East and West, until the Roman Catholics doubted his existence and removed him from their liturgical calendar. Generally however, I don't let the potential non-existence of St. Theodore Stratelates bother me too much; I even own an icon of him.

« Last Edit: March 06, 2012, 12:54:13 PM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

I have concluded after some study that "Saint" Juan Diego who claimed to see the Virgin Mary at Guadelope did not exist as a human. He is merely a political symbol from that time who grew into a religious figure. If indeed this is true this presents a problem for the Catholic Churches claim of infallibility since the Pope canonized somebody who did not exist. If indeed he did this means papal infallibility is not true. If papal infallibility is not true then the Catholic Church, the institution itself claiming to be infallible based on the idea that Christ ordained it to be so, can not be infallible, at least it cannot have valid apostolic succession since at least 1870 since this is the year papal infallibility is declared. In canonizing a saint the Pope is exercising his power as pontiff. Infallibility states this. Many Protestants have wrongly labeled this doctrine the idea that the Pope is without sin, but it is not true. It merely means he is without doctrinal error in exercising his papal office. I am growing increasingly convinced Catholicism cannot be true on this basis. Indeed if the Pope ever is found to have messed up doctrinally this disproves the truth of Roman Catholicism. This really bothers me.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #891-- "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

1. Canonization normally occurs after a lengthy and extensive process of investigation into the proposed saint, his/her miracles, life, etc., etc., etc. While, once conferred, it is, as I understand it, infallible, many more people than just the Pope are involved in the process, and from what I understand that process is quite rigorous.

2. You make a claim about St. Juan Diego and then provide absolutely nothing to substantiate it. Would you mind doing so, please? You have "concluded after some study..."--what does *that* mean? Why should anyone accept your conclusion?

Come now, J Michael, you know that on this board there are many who never let a good opinion stand in the way of facts when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church, just as there are many opinionated RC's who never let the same stand in the way of facts when it comes to Orthodoxy. Sad.

"Facts? FACTS?? You want F A C T S Please....don't bother me with FACTS--my mind is made up already!!"

By the way....speaking of..........facts........I read somewhere on the ever infallible internet something about St. Peter the Aleut not being a real person. Any substance to that ?

As there are doubts to the authenticity of St. Theodore Stratelates (of Heraclea), who was a saint common to both East and West, until the Roman Catholics doubted his existence and removed him from their liturgical calendar. Generally however, I don't let the potential non-existence of St. Theodore Stratelates bother me too much; I even own an icon of him.

There is something here that you hint at without actually saying outright--in addition to facts, we also need faith.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Pardon the tone, but I don't care whether he existed or not. He may have been a lovely fellow, but he isn't a saint in the Orthodox Church, and our refutation of papal infallibility doesn't hinge on something like this.

Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).

A lot of strange things have been said about this man and it seems odd the myth that built up around him. It seems like he is a political symbol. Even his supposed native name which was not discovered until 200 years after his supposed death does have political ramifications.

A lot of strange things have been said about this man and it seems odd the myth that built up around him. It seems like he is a political symbol. Even his supposed native name which was not discovered until 200 years after his supposed death does have political ramifications.

What are these "political" symbols and ramifications you refer to?

I'm aware that St. Juan Diego's canonization was controversial, but then that was the case with a number of saints, if I'm not mistaken. The fact that one group of scholars disagrees with it and whether or not he actually existed doesn't make it so. I seem to recall reading that in spite of the findings to the contrary that you cite, another (larger?) multi-disciplinary group of scholars presented more convincing evidence that he did, indeed, exist and was worthy of canonization.

But....again....this is a discussion, I would think, that is far more appropriate for a Catholic discussion board than this, an Orthodox board. Just my humble opinion. As was opined earlier by Cognomen, whether St. Juan Diego existed or not is pretty irrelevant to most Orthodox, and the case they make against papal infallibility would certainly never rest on that.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian